For those following the Brunswick Nuclear plant flooding emergency and shutdown, it has taken them 5 days to get both reactors running again, and they are struggling to get to 100% on both.

-----------------------------------------

I have around 11,000 hours experience with the nuclear
process and waste handling, and an MSME in Material Science and Thermal Fluids
from University of Michigan, so this is right up my alley.

For decades the nuclear industry touted themselves with the
idea that the nuclear fuel was a very small part of the total operation of
nuclear plants, and that even if Uranium doubled in price that the consumer
would not even be effected, making it one of the best energy sources.

If this is the case, what is the big drive to get even more
profit out of the process, just a little more profit. Fuel cost of
running a nuclear plant is roughly 1.5% of the total cost, so if you can get
30% more out of the fuel, they might increase profit by .5%.

In relation to the "hotter" waste products that
create higher risk in spent fuel pool, and as seen in this article, much more
dangerous in dry cask storage, these much higher risks are simply not
"worth it" compared to getting a little more power out of the
fuel. See article.

Casks take roughly 500% more damage, depending on the degree
of burnup. And transportation is much more dangerous.

With Yucca or another long term storage uncertain, we have
to rely on the dry cask for the foreseeable future, maybe a few
generations. Increasing the risk is poor
judgement. Just like MOX as a "trick" to
"enhance" the fuel cycle the additional risks are not worth
it.

To put it in perspective, each average nuclear plant
produces the radiation, EVERY DAY, to each a medium size nuclear bomb, that we
have to watch over for thousands of years. Each 2 reactor
plant creates around 750 nuclear bombs of radiation in 1 year, 7500 nuclear
bombs of radiation in 10 years. This is more than all the
bomb tests that were ever performed!

And while they sit in water covered spent fuel pools, they
present a grave risk. In a wide area catostrophy, there is no way
we can guarantee that the plant would remain staffed, and the electric
circulation pumps needed to keep the used fuel cool will continue to be
supplied. Examples could be a nuclear war, or an EMP that
could knock the grid and large transformers out for months, or a
Heliophysics based CME from the Sun, which are star sent a few
"samples" just in the last few years that missed us, but a modern day
Carrington type event could end up with several plants and spent fuel pools
going on fire from their self generated decay heat. Picture
20,000 nuclear bombs worth of radiation being released at the same time.

Allowing high burn up nuclear allows a much higher risk of
these extinction level scenarios which are not far fetched, these are not
conspiracy theories. And the risk is not increased by just 30%, the
risk is increased by several fold.

Even if just one high burn up accident occurs, it may not be
an extinction level event, but it could certainly be a country ending event, as
Gorbachev noted that Chernobyl was the root cause of the breakup of the Soviet
Union.

Just because we can, does not mean that we
should. An "Expected Value" Analysis is performed
as follows, The Chance of a Positive outcome and the value of that outcome are
multiplied together, then the chance of a negative outcome and the
"value" of that negative occur are multiplied and subtracted from the
first Multiplied positive value.

It should be very clear that even if the risks are very low
for a negative event the costs are very high, and the overall equation based on
a very small positive benefit is greatly out-weighted by the overall negative
expected value.

It is a bad bet. A bet we should not take, even
though technology allow us to take the bet, it is a foolish bet.

If you were to held personally responsible, you and your
family, for the results of this decision, would you take this bet?

The only responsible answer is NO.

Because nuclear is struggling with economics, DOES NOT
justify increasing the risks by several fold.